By Darmin Bachu
(Editor’s note: This article summarizes allegations and legal arguments contained in publicly filed court records. Allegations made by the parties remain contested unless otherwise indicated by rulings of the court. The litigation remains pending, and the court has not ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.)
The legal battle over the governance of TiE New York has entered a new phase after Queens Supreme Court Justice Karina Alomar dismissed the original lawsuit this spring, only to see plaintiffs return weeks later seeking permission to file a substantially revised complaint based on newly obtained corporate records and subsequent events.
The latest filings shift the focus of the litigation away from whether the original complaint was adequately pleaded and toward whether New York’s liberal amendment rules permit plaintiffs to pursue an expanded case built upon evidence they contend was unavailable when the action was first filed.
Court dismissed original complaint
On April 13, 2026, Justice Karina Alomar granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint in Dama v. TiE New York, concluding that the pleading failed to state legally sufficient causes of action.
Among the court’s principal findings were that plaintiff Kesav Dama failed to establish the statutory standing necessary to pursue derivative claims on behalf of the nonprofit organization because he did not satisfy the five-percent membership requirement under New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.
The court also dismissed claims alleging breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after concluding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support those causes of action.
The decision addressed only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings presented to the court and did not resolve disputed factual allegations following discovery or trial.
Plaintiffs return with motion to replead
Rather than relying solely upon an appeal, plaintiffs filed a motion on May 20, 2026, seeking leave under CPLR 3025(b) to serve and file a proposed amended complaint.
Plaintiffs argue they are not asking the court to reconsider its April dismissal. Instead, they contend New York law encourages courts to freely permit amended pleadings when deficiencies identified by the court can be cured through additional factual allegations.
According to the motion, the proposed amended complaint differs substantially from the original pleading because it incorporates corporate records allegedly produced only after commencement of the litigation, additional derivative plaintiffs intended to address standing requirements, and events that occurred after the lawsuit was filed.
Plaintiffs argue those materials were unavailable when the original complaint was drafted and therefore could not have been pleaded earlier.
Corporate records become central to the case
The proposed amended complaint places increased emphasis on TiE New York’s internal governance.
According to plaintiffs, recently produced board minutes and other corporate records raise questions regarding whether outside litigation counsel was formally authorized by the Board of Directors, the authority exercised by TiE New York President Jignesh Patel, the authority of a Special Committee that investigated complaints against Patel, and whether certain actions complied with TiE New York’s bylaws and New York nonprofit governance law.
Plaintiffs further argue those issues were not before the court when the original complaint was dismissed because the underlying corporate documents allegedly had not yet been produced.
Those allegations remain disputed and have not been adjudicated by the court.
Defendants: Amendment would be futile
TiE New York and the individual defendants oppose permitting the amended complaint.
In a 29-page memorandum filed with the court, defendants argue the proposed amended complaint merely repackages claims previously rejected by Justice Alomar while adding legal conclusions rather than viable causes of action.
According to defendants, the amended complaint still fails to establish derivative standing under New York law, does not satisfy statutory demand requirements applicable to derivative litigation, continues to seek judicial intervention into the internal affairs of a voluntary nonprofit organization, and remains legally insufficient.
Defendants further argue plaintiffs cannot satisfy the statutory standing requirements by adding anonymous “John Doe” plaintiffs to the proposed amended complaint.
In reply papers filed June 23, plaintiffs argue defendants improperly ask the court to decide the merits of the proposed amended complaint rather than applying CPLR 3025(b)’s liberal standard governing amendments.
Plaintiffs contend the amended pleading materially differs from the original complaint because it incorporates previously unavailable corporate records, newly discovered factual allegations, additional derivative plaintiffs, and significant post-commencement events.
According to plaintiffs, defendants have failed to demonstrate the legal prejudice necessary to deny leave to amend.
Separate dispute over court conference
The litigation also produced a procedural dispute over plaintiffs’ request for an in-person conference with the court.
Plaintiffs argued that newly produced corporate records raised significant nonprofit governance issues warranting judicial guidance.
Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the issues should instead be addressed through the pending motion practice and that an in-person conference would be procedurally inappropriate.
Why the next decision matters
Justice Alomar must now determine whether plaintiffs should be permitted to file their proposed amended complaint.
If leave to amend is granted, the litigation would continue on the basis of a new operative complaint, likely resulting in renewed motion practice.
If leave is denied, appellate review of both the dismissal order and the denial of leave to amend is expected to become the plaintiffs’ principal avenue for continuing the litigation.
The forthcoming decision may provide guidance regarding the application of CPLR 3025(b) in nonprofit governance disputes, particularly where plaintiffs seek to amend complaints based upon corporate records allegedly obtained only after litigation has commenced.
Documents Reviewed:
This article is based upon review of the following publicly filed court documents in Dama v. TiE New York, Queens County Supreme Court, Index No. 734043/2025:
- Decision and Order of Justice Karina Alomar dated April 13, 2026.
- Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve and File an Amended Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025(b), filed May 20, 2026.
- Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition, filed June 11, 2026.
- Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law, filed June 23, 2026.
- Plaintiff’s Letter Requesting an In-Person Conference.
- Defendants’ Letter Opposing Plaintiff’s Conference Request.
Prior to publication, a reporter for The American Bazaar contacted TiE New York President Jignesh Patel, defendants’ attorney Joseph Carbonaro, and plaintiffs’ attorney Tony Nguyen seeking comment regarding the matters discussed in this article. As of the publication deadline, no responses had been received.
Here are previous articles in this series:
New court filings escalate governance crisis at TiE New York (March 3, 2026)
How a $500,000 investment may have corrupted the 2023 TiE New York election — and fueled the crisis that followed (December 31, 2025)
TiE New York pushes back in court as judge lifts temporary restraining order (December 30, 2025)
Lawsuit against TiE New York filed weeks before gala, with most defendants served during event (December 28, 2025)
Backdated demands, witness conflicts, and escalating legal stakes: New documents intensify scrutiny of TiE New York leadership (December 27, 2025)
New documents raise fresh questions about TiE New York leadership and board oversight (December 25, 2025)